You say: is a reader’s challenge to a debate one step closer?

IT'S TIME: If the Crown could act to dismiss the democratically elected Gough Whitlam, then why can't it act on a clause in the Constitution, a reader asks.

Light at the end of the tunnel for Brian?

Since the State election, I have presented a letter relating to saving the Valencia orange industry and one getting 10 per cent of our irrigation water back.

Each letter was dated, stamped, initialled and copied by a public servant.

He told me something I did not expect. He said: 'I am sure that Austin will want to talk to you.'

The next day, I wrote to the public servant asking if he would adjudicate debates.

He agreed, provided that Austin agreed.

That was just over a week ago.

My friend Peter was a champion debater at Griffith High School.

I was school captain but was only an also ran for the debating team.

We wondered why we never thought of it before.

We have now asked the Head Master if he knows of an English teacher who would adjudicate between Sussan and me.

We have the subjects agreed for Saving the Valencia industry, saving the Big Four Banks and Trans Pacific Partnership and similar issues.

Also I have recently added my debate challenge to the former Minister for Water who initiated one of the four political decisions putting our region into decline.

He separated water from land.

Sussan is also in the firing line

Brian Mills

Griffith

Enough complaining

I am writing in disgust at Sussan Ley’s comments in relationship to section 44 of the Australian Constitution.

No Sussan, dismissing citizenship analysis is a greedy politician’s way of hiding from the fact that there are people in Parliament that should not be there, getting the best of life and always inside the boundaries no matter how far the boundaries stretch.

People don't have a lot of time for politicians’ reasons for the self-indulgence of hard-working peoples’ taxes.

How many lawyers and Queen’s counsels and top legal public servants plus the best legal minds in constitutional law does it take to know what section 44 means?

Politicians should find out if they're complying with section 44 at their own expense.

Those who have been found to be dual citizens in Australian Parliament need to pay back every dollar to the Australian people, including those politicians that have retired that are still getting pensions that they were never entitled under section 44 of the Constitution.

The High Court made it clear that not knowing the law is no excuse.

The Constitution can only change by a referendum.

Nobody gave a damn about what was written in the Constitution in 1901 until it bit people in 2017.

I ask, who was looking after Australia while the politicians were looking after themselves?

Jerzy Chodzinski

Lavington

Punch a low blow

What a disgraceful act by a jockey Dylan Caboche to punch a horse.

I find it shocking that the punishment for such behaviour is a two-week suspension.

As admitted by the jockey, there is absolutely no excuse for his behaviour. But a two-week suspension does nothing to address the seriousness of what he did. Disgusting.